Supreme Court Denies Request to Revisit Same-Sex Marriage Decision.

[johnwk]

You're allowed to be wrong.

And so you are, as is Justice Gorsuch.

Justice Gorsuch fraudulently indicates our Constitution forbids discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity.

But the only provision in our Constitution which forbids discrimination on the bases of "sex" is the Nineteenth Amendment.

If the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits distinctions based upon sex, there would be no need for the Nineteenth Amendment.

Additionally, the American people in the 1980's specifically reject the Equal Rights Amendment, which is designed to prohibit discrimination based upon “sex”.


One reason for its rejection by the American people was that it would lead to homosexual marriage.

So, frigidweirdo, when did the American people adopt a provision in our Constitution forbidding distinctions based upon "sex", and what is its specific wording?

 

[frigidweirdo]

And so you are, as is Justice Gorsuch.

Justice Gorsuch fraudulently indicates our Constitution forbids discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity.

But the only provision in our Constitution which forbids discrimination on the bases of "sex" is the Nineteenth Amendment.

If the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits distinctions based upon sex, there would be no need for the Nineteenth Amendment.

Additionally, the American people in the 1980's specifically reject the Equal Rights Amendment, which is designed to prohibit discrimination based upon “sex”.


One reason for its rejection by the American people was that it would lead to homosexual marriage.

So, frigidweirdo, when did the American people adopt a provision in our Constitution forbidding distinctions based upon "sex", and what is its specific wording?

Do you know what a right is?

A right is power taken from the government. But to have a right, it must be EQUAL for all people. If you have a right to marry, it must be equal for all people. The right, as it stands, is the right of a consenting adult to marry another consenting adult. All consenting adults are now equal.

 

[MostBoringManInTheWorld]

Meh, it's just pretend marriage

Like at least 50% of all marriages.

 

[MostBoringManInTheWorld]

Homosexuals have fake marriages, even if they are ‘legal.’ Mareiage has always been between men and women.

Most of those are fake, too.

 

[MostBoringManInTheWorld]

I'm not sure if Kim Davis is just trying to be clever or if she's just plain retarded.

She claims her rights are being violated.

According to her and others' interpretation, homosexuality may very well indeed violate her religious beliefs.

But it doesn't violate her personal rights, especially her right to believe as she wants, which she is able to do.

Now if she feels that the requirements of her job are a violation of her religious beliefs, that's another thing.

But the simple solution is, don't take a job that you feel violates your religious beliefs, yo-yo.

She should become a marriage counselor.

She definitely has the God-given ability to maintain a healthy, stable marriage.

 

[initforme]

Or, perhaps the fall of our society. Heterosexual marriage and raising families has been the 'glue' that holds societies together. In addition, the purposeful degrading and denigration of women staying home, handling the home front, raising children, making sure everyone has good food to eat and making sure the kids learn how to be good human beings is tragic. That is the most important job in our society and should not be trashed as it is today. Just my opinion, chill.

Women were forced to work so a family could survive. That started about the time the demise of unions. Attack the wages and benefits unions provide and you get what we have now. Blaming feminism is simply false.

 

[johnwk]

Do you know what a right is?

You never answered the question, frigidweirdo, when did the American people adopt a provision in our Constitution forbidding distinctions based upon "sex", and what is its specific wording?

 

[johnwk]

I'm not sure if Kim Davis is just trying to be clever or if she's just plain retarded.

She claims her rights are being violated.

According to her and others' interpretation, homosexuality may very well indeed violate her religious beliefs.

A fundamental right of mankind is, the right to mutually agree in one's contracts and associations.

JWK

Our sexual deviant crowd detests people being free to mutually agree in their contracts and associations.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Or, perhaps the fall of our society. Heterosexual marriage and raising families has been the 'glue' that holds societies together. In addition, the purposeful degrading and denigration of women staying home, handling the home front, raising children, making sure everyone has good food to eat and making sure the kids learn how to be good human beings is tragic. That is the most important job in our society and should not be trashed as it is today. Just my opinion, chill.

Same sex couples have and raise children and do all of the same things that others do. If society were to fall, gay marriage is not even on the list of the many potential reasons for it.

 

[sartre play]

Or, perhaps the fall of our society. Heterosexual marriage and raising families has been the 'glue' that holds societies together. In addition, the purposeful degrading and denigration of women staying home, handling the home front, raising children, making sure everyone has good food to eat and making sure the kids learn how to be good human beings is tragic. That is the most important job in our society and should not be trashed as it is today. Just my opinion, chill.

QUESTION, Can a woman in a house hold with ONLY one AVERAGE working member, who Brings home( after taxes) under 60 thousand $$ a year
AFFORD to stay home and make sure the family has Good food to eat, Decent health care,& Housing?

 

[g5000]

Homosexuals have fake marriages, even if they are ‘legal.’ Mareiage has always been between men and women.

"We've always oppressed other people we don't like" is not an argument for continuing the practice.

Besides, in Trump's case marriage is between a man and a woman and a mistress, then between a man and a second woman, then between a man and a third womand and a porn star.

Kim Davis gives such people as many marriage certificates as they want. So her excuse about "religious beliefs" is 100 percent unadulterated pure bullshit.

Trump, three marriages. Davis, four marriages. Rush Limbaugh, four marriages. Newt Gingrich, three marriages.

And so forth, and so on.

And these raging hypocrites claim it's gays who are destroying the institution of marriage!

 

[g5000]

One reason for its rejection by the American people was that it would lead to homosexual marriage.

That is incorrect. There was never any mention of gay marriage. I know because I was very involved in that issue at the time.

The reason it was rejected was because people believed their kids' sports teams would be forced to be co-ed, that women wouuld end up in combat (which I was called an extremist idiot for even suggesting that), and other things. But gay marriage never came up.

So, frigidweirdo, when did the American people adopt a provision in our Constitution forbidding distinctions based upon "sex", and what is its specific wording?

"...nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

 

[g5000]

.

Kim Davis faces ‘crippling’ legal fees after Supreme Court defeat​

​

.

Aw, shucks!

I'm sure Mike Huckabee will help her out.

.

 

[struth]

Do you know what a right is?

A right is power taken from the government. But to have a right, it must be EQUAL for all people. If you have a right to marry, it must be equal for all people. The right, as it stands, is the right of a consenting adult to marry another consenting adult. All consenting adults are now equal.

A right is not a power taken from govt

A right is something you are born with and before the govt can take it from you, they just provide due process

A privilege is something the govt gives certain people

Marriage is a recognized fundamental right

 

[struth]

"We've always oppressed other people we don't like" is not an argument for continuing the practice.

Besides, in Trump's case marriage is between a man and a woman and a mistress, then between a man and a second woman, then between a man and a third womand and a porn star.

Kim Davis gives such people as many marriage certificates as they want. So her excuse about "religious beliefs" is 100 percent unadulterated pure bullshit.

Trump, three marriages. Davis, four marriages. Rush Limbaugh, four marriages. Newt Gingrich, three marriages.

And so forth, and so on.

And these raging hypocrites claim it's gays who are destroying the institution of marriage!

Trump has been open to gay marriage for decades even before bigoted Obama came around for politics. Trump has the first openly gay cabinet member.


Kim Davis arguments made no sense cause she was then clerk of court, a govt position

Not a baker

 

[johnwk]

That is incorrect. There was never any mention of gay marriage. I know because I was very involved in that issue at the time.

So was I and met with her in the late 1980's concerning tax reform. Aside from that, you are totally wrong. Schlafly predicted the obvious consequences should the Equal Right Amendment be adopted, which included same sex marriage, e.g.

Phyllis Schlafly Still Drives Opponents Mad

Phyllis Schlafly had a wonderful talent for driving men and women — especially women of a rigid political bent — mad.

eagleforum.org

As for “shameless propaganda,” Schlafly was prescient regarding the consequences that would come from the feminist revolution. As the leader of the movement to stop adoption of the so-called Equal Rights Amendment, she accurately predicted what that push for “equal rights” would lead to: same-sex marriage, women in combat, no-fault divorce, and increased economic insecurity for wives and mothers. Lu accuses her of peddling scare tactics, but how can the truth be a scare tactic?

Phyllis Schlafly Was Right

<b>NRO</b>: Her Predictions While Fighting The ERA Are Still Accurate

www.cbsnews.com

While explaining why the big push for the federal Equal Rights Amendment ultimately failed, in her book Feminist Fantasies Schlafly reprinted some of her old objections: "ERA would put 'gay rights' into the U.S. Constitution because the word in the amendment is 'sex,' not 'women.' Eminent authorities have stated that ERA would legalize the granting of marriage licenses to same-sex couples and generally implement the gay and lesbian agenda."

Why do you find it necessary to make stuff up and lie?

 

[struth]

.

Kim Davis faces ‘crippling’ legal fees after Supreme Court defeat​

​

.

Aw, shucks!

I'm sure Mike Huckabee will help her out.

.

Doubtful, he’s too busy being the US Ambassador to Israel and helping bring peace to the Middle East, and making sure your gay hating pals in Hamas aren’t throwing anymore innocents off buildings cause they are gay

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Kim Davis, a Kentucky county clerk who refused to issue same-sex marriage licenses, had asked the court to reconsider its landmark 2015 opinion. The Supreme Court on Monday turned down a request that it consider overturning its landmark decision to legalize same-sex marriage a decade ago.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/11/10/us/politics/supreme-court-same-sex-marriage.html?campaign_id=60&emc=edit_na_20251110&instance_id=166143&nl=breaking-news&regi_id=82070660&segment_id=210322&user_id=0be3b67ae7031af55ebcbfadb31786d5

The court, without comment, declined the petition, filed by Kim Davis, a former Kentucky county clerk who gained national attention in 2015 when she defied a court order and refused to issue same-sex licenses because of her religious beliefs.

She had asked the Supreme Court to reverse an order that required her to pay more than $300,000 to a couple denied a marriage license — and to overturn the same-sex marriage ruling from 2015.

Ms. Davis was really had no standing to bring this case. She continues to make a fool of herself. The law is the law. She has zero rights to decide who can and cannot be married. If for no other reason than her own FOUR MARRIAGES.

And what the corrupt conservative judges are doing right now on the side is letting people know how to CORRECTLY bring such a lawsuit. You can bank on that.

 

[johnwk]

johnwk wrote:So, frigidweirdo, when did the American people adopt a provision in our Constitution forbidding distinctions based upon "sex", and what is its specific wording?

"...nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Once again you are proved to be full of shit!

The 14th Amendment declares in crystal clear language:

”All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”


As we can see from the language of the 14th Amendment it:


1. Makes ”All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof … citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”


The amendment then goes on to declare:


2. “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.”


This wording forbids State action from abridging a United States citizen’s “privileges or immunities” which a State has adopted under law. Note that the wording does not forbid a State to deny “privileges or immunities” to “persons” who may not be "citizens of the United States"! Nor does the wording declare what “privileges or immunities” a state may or may not adopt.


The amendment then continues with:


3. “… nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law..”


Again, the reference is to State action and applies to “any person” as opposed to “citizens of the United States” and it expressly forbids every State to deprive any “person [within its jurisdiction] of life, liberty, or property without due process of” a State’s laws. Due process of law refers to procedure and the administration of justice in accordance with established rules and principles.


Section one of the Amendment then concludes with:


4. ”…nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”


This wording simply commands that whatever a State’s laws are, a person within that State’s jurisdiction may not be denied the equal application of those specific laws. Keep in mind the wording does not forbid a state to make distinctions in law, e.g., based upon sex or age, but whatever laws are adopted by a State with regard to sex or age, the State may not deny to any person, blacks and whites alike, within its jurisdiction the equal application of those specific laws. The laws must be enforced equally upon all, e.g., if a distinction in law is made with respect to civil rights, (not political) that the wife may not testify, sue or contract, it must be enforced equally upon all regardless of race, color or previous condition of slavery.

And, keep in mind, the Fourteenth Amendment's objectives were eloquently summarized by one of its supporters as follows:

“Its whole effect is not to confer or regulate rights, but to require that whatever of these enumerated rights and obligations are imposed by State laws shall be for and upon all citizens alike without distinctions based on race or former condition of slavery…It permits the States to say that the wife may not testify, sue or contract. It makes no law as to this. Its whole effect is to require that whatever rights as to each of the enumerated civil (not political) matters the States may confer upon one race or color of the citizens shall be held by all races in equality…It does not prohibit you from discriminating between citizens of the same race, or of different races, as to what their rights to testify, to inherit &c. shall be. But if you do discriminate, it must not be on account of race, color or former conditions of slavery. That is all. If you permit a white man who is an infidel to testify, so you must a colored infidel. Self-evidently this is the whole effect of this first section. It secures-not to all citizens, but to all races as races who are citizens- equality of protection in those enumerated civil rights which the States may deem proper to confer upon any race.” ___ SEE: Representative Shallabarger, a supporter of the amendment ,Congressional Globe, 1866, page 1293


Why do you always find it necessary to make shit up?

 

[struth]

Once again you are proved to be full of shit!

The 14th Amendment declares in crystal clear language:

”All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”


As we can see from the language of the 14th Amendment it:


1. Makes ”All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof … citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”


The amendment then goes on to declare:


2. “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.”


This wording forbids State action from abridging a United States citizen’s “privileges or immunities” which a State has adopted under law. Note that the wording does not forbid a State to deny “privileges or immunities” to “persons” who may not be "citizens of the United States"! Nor does the wording declare what “privileges or immunities” a state may or may not adopt.


The amendment then continues with:


3. “… nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law..”


Again, the reference is to State action and applies to “any person” as opposed to “citizens of the United States” and it expressly forbids every State to deprive any “person [within its jurisdiction] of life, liberty, or property without due process of” a State’s laws. Due process of law refers to procedure and the administration of justice in accordance with established rules and principles.


Section one of the Amendment then concludes with:


4. ”…nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”


This wording simply commands that whatever a State’s laws are, a person within that State’s jurisdiction may not be denied the equal application of those specific laws. Keep in mind the wording does not forbid a state to make distinctions in law, e.g., based upon sex or age, but whatever laws are adopted by a State with regard to sex or age, the State may not deny to any person, blacks and whites alike, within its jurisdiction the equal application of those specific laws. The laws must be enforced equally upon all, e.g., if a distinction in law is made with respect to civil rights, (not political) that the wife may not testify, sue or contract, it must be enforced equally upon all regardless of race, color or previous condition of slavery.

And, keep in mind, the Fourteenth Amendment's objectives were eloquently summarized by one of its supporters as follows:

“Its whole effect is not to confer or regulate rights, but to require that whatever of these enumerated rights and obligations are imposed by State laws shall be for and upon all citizens alike without distinctions based on race or former condition of slavery…It permits the States to say that the wife may not testify, sue or contract. It makes no law as to this. Its whole effect is to require that whatever rights as to each of the enumerated civil (not political) matters the States may confer upon one race or color of the citizens shall be held by all races in equality…It does not prohibit you from discriminating between citizens of the same race, or of different races, as to what their rights to testify, to inherit &c. shall be. But if you do discriminate, it must not be on account of race, color or former conditions of slavery. That is all. If you permit a white man who is an infidel to testify, so you must a colored infidel. Self-evidently this is the whole effect of this first section. It secures-not to all citizens, but to all races as races who are citizens- equality of protection in those enumerated civil rights which the States may deem proper to confer upon any race.” ___ SEE: Representative Shallabarger, a supporter of the amendment ,Congressional Globe, 1866, page 1293


Why do you always find it necessary to make shit up?

Fantastic work here, but marriage is a fundamental right and those can’t be denied. If a law is passed denying such a right it must past strict scrutiny